Quote from hels02:
I don't agree. Bush still has veto for 2 more years, whether Dem's take the Senate or not, it's still gridlock because we still have Bush.
The REAL worry is in the next Presidential Election.... with the current sentiment about Bush (and I don't see it changing), if Dems get the House AND Senate... then we get a Dem Pres...OMG... we have a problem.
All we can do is cross our fingers that the Dems DO NOT win the Senate too.
Quote from hels02:
I don't agree. Bush still has veto for 2 more years, whether Dem's take the Senate or not, it's still gridlock because we still have Bush.
The REAL worry is in the next Presidential Election.... with the current sentiment about Bush (and I don't see it changing), if Dems get the House AND Senate... then we get a Dem Pres...OMG... we have a problem.
All we can do is cross our fingers that the Dems DO NOT win the Senate too.
Quote from hels02:
I don't agree. Bush still has veto for 2 more years, whether Dem's take the Senate or not, it's still gridlock because we still have Bush.
The REAL worry is in the next Presidential Election.... with the current sentiment about Bush (and I don't see it changing), if Dems get the House AND Senate... then we get a Dem Pres...OMG... we have a problem.
All we can do is cross our fingers that the Dems DO NOT win the Senate too.

Quote from HolyGrail:
Bush won't veto much. I'm from Texas and I know. When he was governor the texas congress was democratic. He worked very well with the democrats. The only reason bush did not work well with the democrats while being president is he didn't think he had to. Nothing else.
Bush is more of a democrat then a republican and has been for his entire political career. He spent enormous amounts of money in Texas with his democratic friends. He was the largest spender as governor in texas history.
I am a staunch republican, but if the democrats could have mustered a decent candidate I would have voted democratic in the last two elections. He IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN fiscally irresponsible.